Character/faction alignment [speculation, spoilers]

[Bovius]

Someone please feel free to point me to another thread if this has already been discussed.

It's recently occurred to me that we haven't actually established which side in the upcoming battle is the "noble and decent" side, and which is the "vile and unholy" side.

Facts:
* Stanley the Tool is trying to get more arkentools.
* Stanley's forces are almost completely wiped out.
* Stanley employes a croakamancer, and most of his military is currently uncroaked.
* Stanley is rude and incompetant.

Also:
* Prince Ansom is out to kill Stanley and destroy what remains of his kingdom.
* Ansom is allied with a variety of factions and controls a sizeable army.
* Ansom controls fluffy units with bright colors.
* Ansom is tactful and wears light-colored armor.

While croakamancy would normally be associated with "vile and unholy", I don't think we've established that association in Erfworld yet. Who's to say that Stanley doesn't command the only free society left in Erfworld, and that Ansom doesn't rule a vast, oppressive empire with his legion of plush dolls and marshmallows?

[Maurog]

I would guess it's the standard Openers vs. Closers conflict, because it is implied collecting all the Arkentools in one hands will disrupt the world balance severely. But now we see that Ansom is carrying a tool of his own, so this can't be right. It also looks like Ansom is trying to wipe out Stanley, not just grab his hammer. I hope there is some complicated reason to all that fighting, and not just because P.Ansom's campaign winning conditions say "eliminate the red player".

[Mauril Everleaf]

I have thought this all along. I don't like when posters refer to Ansom's side as "the good guys" and Satanley and Wanda's side as the "bad guys". If they are "good" and "bad" at all (which TBS games tend to not do) Stanley is the side of good, if only because they have the protagonist, which makes them the "good" side. Heck, if LotR was told from the perspective of an orc party, the Fellowship would be the bad guys.

[Silverlocke980]

I have thought this all along. I don't like when posters refer to Ansom's side as "the good guys" and Satanley and Wanda's side as the "bad guys". If they are "good" and "bad" at all (which TBS games tend to not do) Stanley is the side of good, if only because they have the protagonist, which makes them the "good" side. Heck, if LotR was told from the perspective of an orc party, the Fellowship would be the bad guys.


Hmm... Don't quite know about that last sentence. It's not one's perspective, but what one is doing... trying to kill all the humans for the boop of it just doesn't count as good, in my book, for any reason. Trying to kill all humans because your boss will kill you if you don't is likewise bad. Killing all humans to take their lands is even worse... sheer greed is never a good reason for killing.

It seems to me that what Stanley the Tool has been doing is trying to get all the Arkentools. So, in my opinion, it depends on why he's doing it.

-If he's doing it for a higher purpose- such as trying to save the world- than he gets a "get out of evil alignment free" card. I'd love to see this, if only to have a "Necromancy" side be the good guys for once. It would be different- and hilarious.

-For power? Yeah, that would be an evil.

-For personal reasons, like reviving his dead tribe? Don't know. That would be a tricky call. I believe that the ends justify most of the means... note emphasis on most. If his biggest evil is fighting a war, okay, I guess I can accept a few dead bodies in return for trying to save an entire nation. Men have done more evil for less.

If his battle strategy involves, I don't know, eating babies, then we might have a problem.

(Given Erfworld's look I doubt that will come up, but you never know...)

[Mauril Everleaf]

Have you ever read a book called "Grendel"? Its the story of Beowulf, told from the perspective of the monster Grendel. It makes Beowulf seem like a total boop and Grendel the misunderstood and misaligned protagonist. The same could be said of Gondor. Gondor encroached on the lands of Sauron, preaching their goodness, and slaughtered many an orc. The orcs had no reason not to retaliate at this declaration of war. Had the roles been reversed, the orcs would be seen as the misunderstood good guys.

[Doshi]

Stanley seems to believe that he is serving the Gods. Why do you think he liked the idea of being called "Tool"? Also, remember that while Stanley obviously has a lot of enemies, the Predictamancers and Findamancers of the Magic Kingdoms are at the very least neutral in this conflict. If they weren't, would they have sold Stanley the spell used to summon Parson?
It may also be relevent to note that Anson's army has no Lookomancers.
That's another example of a type of divination based magic user, who don't support Anson's side. Why do all the Diviners seem to prefer Stanley to Anson? Maybe they know it's much better if Stanley wins?

[Silverlocke980]

Comic 22 throws a new light on this.

Ansom's side has a Vampire.

What does this do to the good/evil alignments? Curious to hear your thoughts.

[Mauril Everleaf]

I wouldn't say that Vinny is a vampire, but I can't say that he's not.

[slayerx]

Comic 22 throws a new light on this.

Ansom's side has a Vampire.

What does this do to the good/evil alignments? Curious to hear your thoughts.
Well, what it means is that we shouldn't judge poeple too quickly based upon appearances... this would also include croakamancer's, crap golems, and the army of plush

However, when it comes down to it, Stanley has shown himself to be a selfish little boop... His quest for the arkentools seems like it's mostly for greedy, power hungery, reason than it is for a higher purpose... i think it's also safe to say Stanly started this conflict... i mean early in the comic Wanda said that it wasn't until Stanley went hunting for the arkentools did everything begin falling apart in his kingdom. If i had to guess, Stanley started off with a full kingdom, and then attack one or more sides attempting to find the arkentools, and in the end many kingdoms came together to take him down a peg... considering stanely's ego, i'd also imagine that up to this point he would be refusing all attempts for a cease fire, thinking that he could win... really, it does not seem like stanly is at all hiding his thoughts and how he feels, what we see from the outside is what he is deep down


Stanley is the side of good, if only because they have the protagonist, which makes them the "good" side.
I think stanely is pretty much the evil side... however this is what makes parson's role all the more interesting... he's forced to fight for the bad guys, and bascially has to find a way out... it's WAY more interesting that Parson being summoned and willingly helping the bad guys

[Cyclone231]

However, when it comes down to it, Stanley has shown himself to be a selfish little boop... His quest for the arkentools seems like it's mostly for greedy, power hungery, reason than it is for a higher purpose... i think it's also safe to say Stanly started this conflict... i mean early in the comic Wanda said that it wasn't until Stanley went hunting for the arkentools did everything begin falling apart in his kingdom.
Because, after all, having a jerk leader automatically makes your nation or at least all of the leader's goals, evil, right?

Wait.

Well, I guess nobody's ever considered declaring war on someone because they were working on gaining weapons that were extremely powerful.

Wait.

[Stormthorn]

Ansom controls fluffy units with bright colors


Yes, Vinny is such a cute fluffy little guy, and that pink...WAIT, he ISNT WEARING any bright colors and he CERTAINLY ISNT FLUFFY!

[Azukar]

Ah... Just had a thought while reading this: isn't this an allience of all kinds of people, coming together to finish off the Plaid (Tool) tribe? If so, that means that there's probably good and bad guys in Ansom's army, he's just leading it. The disparate forces of the world recognise that Stanley (who has been questing with dwagons) as a real threat, so they come together for now to wipe him out. No definitive Good and Evil sides here, just a tenuous alliance of people coming together for the greater good.

[Yodimus]

Perhaps I'm just being simple, but I always assumed we were dealing with a "everything's broken/bad guy vs. bad guy" situation, rather than a typical epic. We have a few characters: Wanda, Julian, Sizemore, Parson...who are at least redeemable if nothing else. Everybody else, and everything else, is flawed in some way, consciously or not. The ultimate goal in this case wouldn't be to win the day, but to clean up the mess.

Oh, and blow crap up.
That's important too.

[mikeejimbo]

Maybe they know it's much better if Stanley wins?

An excellent question, and if they're diviners they may know that if Stanley wins, it would be better.

However, they are diviners, so maybe they know which side wins and are betting on the right horse.

As for the alignment, I say that "good" and "evil" are subjective, completely artificial and arbitrary designations. All that matters is power! And lots of it!

Excuse me while I pause for evil laughter.

[Ceska]

Depending on what you count as evil I'd say they all are evil to neutral. They all are greedy bastards striving for victory, just like it is in strategy games. And Stanley has the Gondor Battle for Middle Earth Capitol, so he has one of these "good" things too.

@Silverlocke980: And running around in Orc territory without being wanted and killing masses of them like in Moria is good?

[Learnedguy]

There is no good, no evil. This isn't D&D.

What is is though, are to countries at war. One of them ruled by a small, impolite, angry, self-occupied, sexuality unsure (what's all this about handsome boys as army leaders o.O?) man, the other by Prince Charming.

Sure, one side might seem better than the other, but really, that doesn't make them good, nor does it make the opposite side evil.

It's politics and greed, that's all.

[Hilary Moon Murphy]

As a parent, I know how evil cute little creatures can be. That's why I'm rooting for Stanley.

(Okay, that's not true. I'm rooting for Parson, Wanda and Sizemore. Stanley I want to see kicked on his boop with any Arkentool available.)

Hmm

[mikeejimbo]

(Okay, that's not true. I'm rooting for Parson, Wanda and Sizemore. Stanley I want to see kicked on his boop with any Arkentool available.)


Personally, I would prefer Stanley to learn some humility. If the route to that is getting kicked on his boop with an Arkentool, everyone wins!

[Uzraid]

Gondor encroached on the lands of Sauron, preaching their goodness, and slaughtered many an orc. The orcs had no reason not to retaliate at this declaration of war. Had the roles been reversed, the orcs would be seen as the misunderstood good guys.

I can't believe nobody has called you on this. I won't either, because I think you know what you're doing.

Grendel was cool. Seamus Heaney's Beowulf was better. For that matter, the original Beowulf was better (although harder to read).

And yes, I do reference verse translations of Old English epics by contemporary Irish poets in daily conversation. I get worse and worse.

U

[Ritifo]

There's no good or bad in war. Think about it, the people who fight on each side have been able to justify killing other people for their cause. No one goes to war just because they're evil and like killing people. Unless you're fighting Nazis.

[One Skunk Todd]

I can't imagine Stanley being good. His underlings obey and submit to him on pain ofdeath, and his prisoners are crucified, or at least suspended by their arms off the ground.

[Ritifo]

There's no evidence, however, that the the side led by Prince Ansom would not do the same. The fact that prisoners of war are treated poorly means nothing, both because of the fact that they're prisoners of war and there's likely nothing like the Geneva Convention in Erfworld. Ruling people through military might is not necessarily a characteristic trait of evil people. I think Stanley's simply your average lord of the land who decided to go on a quest for the Arkentools. And has apparently failed, so far.

[Silverlocke980]

It would be hilarious, in all actuality, to see Stanley being the good guy. This talk of "Fate" magic, and the rampant use of such by Stanley and crew (the magic that summoned Parson was Fate magic; the Arkentools are apparently Fate magic), and the fact Ansom can't use it, might dictate that his side is the good guys. What if collecting all the Arkentools will save the world from destruction?

It would be rather amusing if, despite all his personal flaws, Stanley turns out to have a good heart.

(Locked up in a jerk.)

[bdh5533]

here i was thinking that the authors were trying to make ansom out as the evil one. thinking that this is probably the game that parson made, and given his nature for sarcastic wit, I imagine a horde of cute fluffy bears, a vampire, and a good looking prince would definately be the root of all that is evil.

[Jorkens]

Even if we assume that Erfworld is more or less identical to Parson's game, I don't think that a seasoned and cynical gaming hack is likely to come up with as ponderously cliched as Parson's intoductory spiel and mean it entirely seriously. It's not entirely clearly on what level it's sarcasm, though - he could be referring to Ansom's forces as all that's noble and decent to draw attention to what a cliched good guy Ansom is, or he could be referring to them as all that's vile and unholy because they're sickeningly bright and shiny and cute and fluffy.

And yeah, my guess is that there are no particular 'good guys' or 'bad guys'. As Ritifo pointed out, it's only really in epic fantasy that wars consist of Good people and Evil people duking it out to decide whether the people of the world will live in a pleasant, equitable and free society or in some sort of Hieronymous Bosch nightmare. In real life it's historically tended to be two fairly neutral governments fighting over an obscure scrap of land on the other side of the world or a disputed border or the succession to the throne of somewhere or something like that. And I suspect that Erfworld is set in that sort of a world.

[Setra]

Well all I can say is I hope Stanley's Side wins.

For three reasons:
I think Wanda is cool
I like Dragons (Dwagons)
I want Parson's Tactical ability to be just that good

On another note, the 'game' they are playing, when they talk abou tunits 'move', it reminds me of a game I used to play. Warlords 3: Darklords Rising.

Anyone else know what I mean?

[Ulrich_Brew]

War is ugly. The US was the good guy in WWII but didn't we unleash the most deadly attack on a population ever?

War is ugly. We don't know who started this war and we don't know who is the bad guy.... Yet.

[Ilgivan]

Am I the only one who thinks that Parson is in fact bound to Wanda, rather than directly bound to Stanley, and that this will become an important plot point later when they take Sizemore and Julian, and get out of there?

Julian is a mercenary.

[Maurog]

Who is Julian?
And I don't think Wanda would lie about who Parson is supposed to be tied to.

[Klingon_in_the_Playground]

Parson probably is bound to Stanley, but since it's Wanda's spell she may be able to unbind him.

[Kanthalion]

It would be hilarious, in all actuality, to see Stanley being the good guy. This talk of "Fate" magic, and the rampant use of such by Stanley and crew (the magic that summoned Parson was Fate magic; the Arkentools are apparently Fate magic), and the fact Ansom can't use it, might dictate that his side is the good guys. What if collecting all the Arkentools will save the world from destruction?

It would be rather amusing if, despite all his personal flaws, Stanley turns out to have a good heart.

(Locked up in a jerk.)
I agree it would be cool for Stanley to be the good guy, but rather than having a good heart, I would prefer him to do all the right things for all the wrong reasons.

[Silverlocke980]

Actually, yeah, that would be awesome, too, and fit with his character better.

I disagree with what seems to be a majority opinion forming; I think this isn't a world of "neutral against neutral", but of good vs. evil. Remember what Parson said about his game world, upon his introduction?

Also, it's not just in epic fantasy that such battles occur. It's in science fiction, it's in most Japanese RPGs, it's even in the real world (WWII), though that's probably the only time in history such a thing ever happened. So I'll hold off on saying "neutral v. neutral" until I get more evidence that Stanley's not supposed to be the bad guy, if only because the skeletons and Uncroaked seem to be such a strong indicator of him being a bad guy.

[Om]

I disagree with what seems to be a majority opinion forming; I think this isn't a world of "neutral against neutral", but of good vs. evil. Remember what Parson said about his game world, upon his introduction?Stanley commands legions of undead while Ansom brings Carebears into battle. Of course its good v evil. What I love is that we're seeing the story from the perspective of the "bad guys".

[PlugNPlay]

Who is Julian?
Gotta be a mis-spelling of Jillian.

[Silverlocke980]

Stanley commands legions of undead while Ansom brings Carebears into battle. Of course its good v evil. What I love is that we're seeing the story from the perspective of the "bad guys".

Exactly.

Though it does make one wonder- how in the world do Carebears fight? :smallfrown: Please, no Carebear stares...

(disturbing...)

[Thexare Blademoon]

and Satanley and Wanda's side as the "bad guys".

Um, if you don't like when people refer to Stanley as a bad guy, maybe you shouldn't spell his name in a way which implies that he is one. :smallbiggrin:

(I normally don't point out typos, but this one I couldn't pass up.)

[mikeejimbo]

Stanley commands legions of undead while Ansom brings Carebears into battle. Of course its good v evil. What I love is that we're seeing the story from the perspective of the "bad guys".


Exactly.

Though it does make one wonder- how in the world do Carebears fight? :smallfrown: Please, no Carebear stares...

(disturbing...)

Why do you have the idea that the undead are inherently evil?

[Kanthalion]

Why do you have the idea that the undead are inherently evil?

Because it is an unnatural abomination Muhahahahah.

[Om]

Because it is an unnatural abomination Muhahahahah.
Wot he said :smallwink:

[mikeejimbo]

Because it is an unnatural abomination Muhahahahah.


Wot he said :smallwink:

That's only a product of the culture in which you've been raised. You need to release the shackles of your upbringing and expand your mind!

Whoa, I sound like a hippie. I'm going to go now...

[Cyclone231]

I concur with mikeejimbo.

Even in D&D, despite intelligent undead being inherently "evil" (ie don't fight no paladins), they can have good alignments. And the unintelligent undead CAN'T ACTUALLY BE EVIL OMFG SOMETHING WITHOUT FREE WILL CANNOT HAVE AN ALIGNMENT.

Furthermore, we have no concept of the cosmology of Erfworld. In it, summoning undead could actually bring more of a good type of energy back into the world (life, mercy, kindness, et cetera), possibly along with that person's soul.

Look, I have no problem with people artificially expanding their lifespan, even if it relies on "unnatural" (aka MAGIC) methods. Everything magic does could be called an abomination against the natural order. In fact, in many cases it actually is. For example:
• Owlbears
• Helm of Opposite Alignment (so much for free will!)
• Sanctify Evil (so much for free will, again!)
• Resurrection (if raising zombies is evil, so is this spell)
• Cure Wounds (hey, it's the natural order of things for people to heal naturally)
• Remove Disease (uh, diseases are living beings, natural to the world)
• Remove Fear (remember what Redcloak said?)

[Om]

That's only a product of the culture in which you've been raised. You need to release the shackles of your upbringing and expand your mind!

Whoa, I sound like a hippie. I'm going to go now...While true there's still the fact that both sides have been presented as representations of good and evil. Stanley fields an army of undead, twolls and goblins. Now it could be that skeletons are the epitome of good in Erfworld... but I doubt it very much.

[slayerx]

Why do you have the idea that the undead are inherently evil?

For me, It's not so much that zombies and undead are evil, it's that the poeple that would normally want to summon them and use them are generally Evil. In order to make use of such forces you generally have to have less respect for the dead. That's kind of why you don't see that many good necromancers, most of them are either evil or neutral at best...

Grant it, the mentioning of our cultural perceptions should not be ignored... afterall, Zombies are normally out eating flesh and brains, Skeletons and zombies are also very common obstacle for good guys in various stories, and there's that whole thing in DnD with good clerics and paladins having TURN undead, while evil clerics have BOLSTER undead... not to often that you see a good undead


While true there's still the fact that both sides have been presented as representations of good and evil. Stanley fields an army of undead, twolls and goblins. Now it could be that skeletons are the epitome of good in Erfworld... but I doubt it very much.
And Ansom allied himself with a guy who looks like a Vampire and leads a legion of DOOMbats... not to mention those SHADY elves... so what's your point?

Good and Evil should not be judged based on the forces that each side uses, that would be judging a book by it's cover... If anything, it should be judged based on the characters leading those forces. The reason i come to say that Stanley is rather evil is not because he leads undead, crap golems, gobwins and so forth, but because he seems to come off as a tyrant to me

[mikeejimbo]

Look, I have no problem with people artificially expanding their lifespan, even if it relies on "unnatural" (aka MAGIC) methods. Everything magic does could be called an abomination against the natural order. In fact, in many cases it actually is.

Thank you Cyclone, I'm glad someone understands, and those are good points. In the same way, people might think some technology is against the natural order, but we don't have much of that. Why not?


In order to make use of such forces you generally have to have less respect for the dead.

I would disagree on this point, as it's again a cultural result. (Which you do account in your next paragraph.) What if you were raised in a society that felt that once you were dead, what happened to your body didn't really matter? Furthermore, what if you felt your body could be used by your people after you leave the mortal coil?

[Jorkens]

While true there's still the fact that both sides have been presented as representations of good and evil. Stanley fields an army of undead, twolls and goblins. Now it could be that skeletons are the epitome of good in Erfworld... but I doubt it very much.
But Rob and Jamie seem to be intelligent and a bit self-aware. They don't seem like the sort of writers to go for cliches like the good guys wearing white hats without subverting it somehow. The subversion might be in flipping it around or it might be in taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but I don't think we can just say 'he has skeletons so he must be evil.'

[slowpoke]

I would guess it's the standard Openers vs. Closers conflict

Hey, Openers and Closers, is that a reference to A Night in the Lonesome October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Night_in_the_Lonesome_October) ? Or does it have some provenance from before the novel?

[Kaeledra]

Ok, I would like to point out that Game Masters play the "evil" side in the majority of games (I know, not all, don't jump on me). It seemed fairly obvious to me that if this is Parson's game, he was all ready to run the "team" that was defending the caldera. Therefore, it makes perfect sense for Team Stanley the Tool (I still giggle at that) to be the "bad guys". Which makes Team Ansom the player-type characters, kind of. Now that doesn't mean that player characters don't do bad things.... :smallwink:

[Uzraid]

But Rob and Jamie seem to be intelligent and a bit self-aware. They don't seem like the sort of writers to go for cliches like the good guys wearing white hats without subverting it somehow. The subversion might be in flipping it around or it might be in taking it to a ridiculous extreme, but I don't think we can just say 'he has skeletons so he must be evil.'

Except that the subversion would itself be a cliché. Wouldn't it be more subversive to play it straight, i.e., to have the gigantic stuffed animals, handsome prince, etc., be the good guys?

And anyone who denies that marbits are manifestly and innately good is clearly just using reverse psychology to get me Lucky Charms!

U

[Jorkens]

Except that the subversion would itself be a cliché. Wouldn't it be more subversive to play it straight, i.e., to have the gigantic stuffed animals, handsome prince, etc., be the good guys?

And anyone who denies that marbits are manifestly and innately good is clearly just using reverse psychology to get me Lucky Charms!

U
Ah, but wouldn't it be even more ironic if it was called the Ironic Review and everyone expected it not to be at all ironic to be ironic but actually it was ironic....

Er, sorry. Basically, I'm not saying that they are reversing things, just that we can't be sure that they aren't - we can't just take skeletons => bad as a given.

[Luvlein]

Though it does make one wonder- how in the world do Carebears fight? :smallfrown: Please, no Carebear stares...

(disturbing...)
As a child, I imagined my teddy bear to be the leader of an animal guerilla, freeing the land from the stink of human oppression. He was a fierce, merciless fighter.

[Maurog]

Hey, Openers and Closers, is that a reference to A Night in the Lonesome October (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Night_in_the_Lonesome_October) ? Or does it have some provenance from before the novel?
It's totally from there.

[bronzemountain]

I think, considering the theme of the comic so far, that the conflict is essentially between the loved and the unloved; the popular beautiful kids vs. the geeks and freaks. Well, and also, we're probably overanalyzing the boop out of this.

[Uzraid]

Well, and also, we're probably overanalyzing the boop out of this.

Do forums have another function that I'm not aware of?

[slayerx]

I would disagree on this point, as it's again a cultural result. (Which you do account in your next paragraph.) What if you were raised in a society that felt that once you were dead, what happened to your body didn't really matter? Furthermore, what if you felt your body could be used by your people after you leave the mortal coil?
that is pretty true
though i guess that's why i unconiously used the term "generally", as in most of the time, but not all of the time


Except that the subversion would itself be a cliché. Wouldn't it be more subversive to play it straight, i.e., to have the gigantic stuffed animals, handsome prince, etc., be the good guys?
I think the movie Shrek would disagree with you

[Uzraid]

I think the movie Shrek would disagree with you

I think the movie Shrek is one of the reasons I'm right. In other words, once Mike Meyers has done it, it's done.

U

[Lex Sandar]

The statement that unintelligent undead are neutral is no longer accurate in D&D 3.5. Just so you know. Skeletons are NE, as are Zombies. Seeing as most other undead are intelligent...and most have their alignments listed as always evil...the D&D reference for undead not being evil naturally is not backed up. Even Libris Mortis has DMs making house rules and variants for say, non-evil Vampires.

Now, as to this setting, that is a different question entirelly. We don't have enough information yet to know the details of who is good, evil, neutral, or what have you, yet. Though we do know that Lord Stanley once had a much larger nation, and squandered it trying to get a number of magical artifacts. Not really a shiny happy thing to do...nor a very intelligent thing to do.

[mikeejimbo]

Now, as to this setting, that is a different question entirelly. We don't have enough information yet to know the details of who is good, evil, neutral, or what have you, yet. Though we do know that Lord Stanley once had a much larger nation, and squandered it trying to get a number of magical artifacts. Not really a shiny happy thing to do...nor a very intelligent thing to do.

I would say that depends on what he intends to do with the artifacts. It's been brought up before: What if he wants to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands? What if he can use them to save the world?

[Setra]

The only thing I have to say is, if he was gathering the artifacts to save the world, don't you think he'd be a little less greedy?

[mikeejimbo]

The only thing I have to say is, if he was gathering the artifacts to save the world, don't you think he'd be a little less greedy?

I would say not necessarily. Maybe he only wants to save the world so everyone will follow him.

Of course, then we're back to square one of him having bad intentions.

[SteveMB]

Well, Stanley's ideas of how to treat prisoners certainly fall into the "evil" column (though it's unclear whether Wanda shares that viewpoint of is simply going along with what he expects).

[mikeejimbo]

Well, Stanley's ideas of how to treat prisoners certainly fall into the "evil" column (though it's unclear whether Wanda shares that viewpoint of is simply going along with what he expects).

It's a good point, and especially with comic 24... Wanda seemed to view the chance to torture as a reward. That's a bit evil.

Wait, no...

That's evil.

[Om]

So as I was saying... :smallwink: